euthanasia

f

ok your probably wondering why all the morbid topics, but that what religion in irish schools does fro you(i thought that thread was excellent by the way,pitty iceworm got banned cos we were in his house and my friend logged in and got him banned, but ah well.)

anyway back on the subject do you think its morally right or wrong, go discuss!

Rev Hellfire

Within the christian context this is covered by the sixth commandment, "thou shall not kill."

So the answer is yes in that I mean no.

Asiaprod

f wrote:

anyway back on the subject do you think its morally right or wrong, go discuss!

Is that a royal command?

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Within the christian context this is covered by the sixth commandment, "thou shall not kill."

So the answer is yes in that I mean no.

"Murder" is more correct though isn't it? I thought only the KJV had the "kill" translation.

anyway back on the subject do you think its morally right or wrong, go discuss!

From a christian perspective I guess it's not right?
Personally, I'm fine for it as long as it's not abused

Rev Hellfire

My understanding is that it is taken to apply to human life only. As for Murder vs Kill it depends on the translation used for the hebrew ratsach I think. but I'm sure Excelsior will have the low down for us on it.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote:

My understanding is that it is taken to apply to human life only.
As to murder well that varies between the various christian traditions, and even then depends on the the

Depends on the...?

Fair enough, I would still think of it as murder though
er the commandment, not euthanasia

Excelsior

I think there is an argument that in the Deuterocanonical text, "kill" refers only to Israelites and there is a view expounded by some orthodox Jews that the decalogue permits free killing of people outside the 12 tribes!

Jesus' remixing of the 6th Commandment is certainly to do with murder, not just killing. For the Christian, Christ is King and his reading is supreme so the discussion about the Commandments becomes a fascinating but largely tangential musing.

There is no formulated response to euthanasia but I think that Christians would be oppossed to it as a rule but open to exceptions. In other words, Excelsior is on the fence.

John Doe

I often think the fence is the only place to be on issues like this. I'm open to hopping down on either side for a chat depending on the circumstances of each specific case, but in general I'm joining Excelsior on his lofty perch. Hah, we can see everything from up here on the fence, you know.

f

where abouts is this fence i want in.

anyway it was a commandment to some one up above, well below since im on the fence

Galvia

Words, words, and more words? Kill. Murder. War. Collateral damage. Conquest. Euthanasia. Abortion. Capital punishment. Execute. Assassinate. Exterminate. Ethnic cleansing. (The list could go on and on). Numerous definitions, Commandments, policies, laws, and value judgments are issued clarifying, justifying or condemning them. But what do they all have in common? Life ends. Someone or something living dies.

Euthanasia. Anyone watch the film, MILLION DOLLAR BABY? The ending was a struggle, I believe for the producer/actor, actress, and audience. It was for me, in any case. Not the typical Hollywood ending? Personally, I think that the ending of this Oscar winning Best Picture was poorly done. Could this, in some small way, exemplify the ending of a life by Euthanasia? Poorly done?

BrianCalgary

I used to be on the fence. The main reason I left that lofty perch when I thought that even though someone is terminal and in pain, maybe God brings someone to himself through the ilness. If the person is euthanized then a salvation is lost.

Likewise, the ill person may come to know Him, or the caregivers can learn how to deal with such an illness and be in aposition to counsel someone who goes through the same thing.

These opportunities would be lost if we interfered with God's plan as to when to end that life.

Galvia

Christopher Reeve died not too long ago, followed by his wife recently. They elected not to pursue ethanasia. Did he suffer many years? Yes. Did he do some good while he still lived? Yes.

Could his suffering been mitigated somewhat? Perhaps. He was a US citizen. The Iraq war has been estimated to cost the US one billion dollars a day. What could a billion dollars a day do for those in our world who are sick and in pain? If anything, the knowledge of such funding, if only a portion of it, could provide hope for those afflicted, to where they might carry on and not think euthanasia? Viktor Frankel survived the Nazi camps. One thing that stands out in his book written about his experience was one word: Hope. Hope was cause for him to endure.

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

I used to be on the fence. The main reason I left that lofty perch when I thought that even though someone is terminal and in pain, maybe God brings someone to himself through the ilness. If the person is euthanized then a salvation is lost.

Likewise, the ill person may come to know Him, or the caregivers can learn how to deal with such an illness and be in aposition to counsel someone who goes through the same thing.

These opportunities would be lost if we interfered with God's plan as to when to end that life.

This is bringing the 'everything happens for a reason' to its ridiculous conclusion. Does God cause cancer in your opinion?, how nice of him.

So do you believe that if we develop cures for varoius terminal illnesses that we should not use them, afterall it was God's will. Perhaps doctors and Surgeons should stop 'playing God' by saving people's lives daily.

robindch

> They elected not to pursue ethanasia.

Yes, that's fine -- the right is entirely theirs if they wish to follow it.

What's unacceptable though, is the lack of a reciprocal right for somebody to decide to be injected/inject themselves with some fatal chemical if they feel that life's too painful to continue. I've often wondered if the people who maintain such an unassailable "moral" position were to suffer from some hideous disabling disease where they're in continuous pain and painkillers no longer work -- whether their position would be quite so secure? Or what about the frequent medical procedure of "having a feeding tube removed" and then to take a few days to die from dehydration, rather than have a quick injection and be done in minutes?

This position is doubly unacceptable when it seems that the only justification for the refusal of euthanasia seems to be that a portion of the population think that there's a "god" somewhere who has an unspecified "plan" somewhere and that this "plan" involves somebody *else* remaining in some unquenchable agony until they die, without ever thinking to ask how the sufferer might feel about the, er, execution of this "plan". What an awful way to go.

BrianCalgary

samb wrote:

This is bringing the 'everything happens for a reason' to its ridiculous conclusion. Does God cause cancer in your opinion?, how nice of him.

So do you believe that if we develop cures for varoius terminal illnesses that we should not use them, afterall it was God's will. Perhaps doctors and Surgeons should stop 'playing God' by saving people's lives daily.

God does not cause illness. Illness exists because mankind has chosen to live a sinful life. Disease is a consequence of that lifestyle. What I find annoying is secularists who blame God for the bad and want to hold him accountable but then turn around and claim that what they do is not sinful and quite alright.

God has given us the intelligence to look for and find cures. Doctors have to be able to use them to cure the physical ailments that we do suffer. God does work through the hands of the surgeons and perform miracles through the medical personnel.

So Robin, It's acceptable to put your granny on an ice flow to die because it has been decided that she is no longer useful and she desires to die? What a wonderfully compassionate society to be created. Read Job, where God says to Job (and I paraphrase) who are you to question my wisdom, I who laid the foundation of the earth and who created all the stars, Is your knowledge that much greater than mine? Would I go through the painful hell of a terminal illness knowing that even one person could come to salvation through my suffering? Absolutely, the eternal reward for the one being saved would be worth every thing. After all Jesus did no less.

Galvia

BrianCalgary wrote:

Illness exists because mankind has chosen to live a sinful life. Disease is a consequence of that lifestyle.

These two sentences are problematic. They are not taken out of context either, as they are introductory sentences to those that follow in the paragraph and thread.

Do you mean by this introduction to suggest that all people who are ill, are ill because they have been sinful, and sin resulted in their illness? Cause and effect: Sin ---> illness?

Does this suggest that if I walk by someone at university and they sneeze in my face and I contract TB from them, I got the TB because I was sinful at the time? And had I not been in a state of sin, I would have been immune from their highly contageous disease?

Does this suggest that if a baby dies in childbirth as a result of his mother being infected by AIDS, that the baby died at the moment of its birth because it had been sinful in the womb?

Or are we going all the way back to the Garden and original sin, suggesting that disease started because Adam ate Eve's apple and disobeyed God, therefore, all of mankind (and womankind) have original sin and therefore deserving of disease?

I am young, work out hard daily, watch my hygiene closely, eat a healthy diet, do not smoke or do drugs, and rarely have a glass of wine. It is extremely rare that I get sick, have superior health and can outperform most of my classmates in tests of physical endurance. Yet I am often sinful during any given week, sometimes playing Eve. Why no frequent illness?

Of course, this would not address what happened to Christopher Reeve (who elected not to pursue euthanasia while in pain). He fell off a horse and was injured on the impact. But then again, to use the same train of thought, if we define his injury as a "dis-ease," then, did he sustain his injury because he had been sinful? Or was it because he was a member of "mankind" and, therefore, eligible for illness by virtue of his membership in the "sinful" species?:rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Galvia wrote:

These two sentences are problematic. They are not taken out of context either, as they are introductory sentences to those that follow in the paragraph and thread.

Do you mean by this introduction to suggest that all people who are ill, are ill because they have been sinful, and sin resulted in their illness? Cause and effect: Sin ---> illness?

Does this suggest that if I walk by someone at university and they sneeze in my face and I contract TB from them, I got the TB because I was sinful at the time? And had I not been in a state of sin, I would have been immune from their highly contageous disease?

Does this suggest that if a baby dies in childbirth as a result of his mother being infected by AIDS, that the baby died at the moment of its birth because it had been sinful in the womb?

Absolutely not. The consequences of this theological point of view end up giving power to a few that can absolve you of the sin in question. It also causes what we call Built In Guilt, when the Christian life should be freeing in the knowledge of salvation and in the carrying out of God's life plan for you.

Galvia wrote:

Or are we going all the way back to the Garden and original sin, suggesting that disease started because Adam ate Eve's apple and disobeyed God, therefore, all of mankind (and womankind) have original sin and therefore deserving of disease?

Yes. Sin exists and we all fall prey to it. What we would classify as the innocent get dragged through the mud. I wouldn't say 'deserving' of disease, more of a (try to find the right words) susceptible to disease.

Galvia wrote:

I am young, work out hard daily, watch my hygiene closely, eat a healthy diet, do not smoke or do drugs, and rarely have a glass of wine. It is extremely rare that I get sick, have superior health and can outperform most of my classmates in tests of physical endurance. Yet I am often sinful during any given week, sometimes playing Eve. Why no frequent illness?

It will come as your body ages and runs down. As every living thing does. However when we are in Heaven doing what we where created to do, then we will have no more sin, tears, or illness.

Galvia wrote:

Of course, this would not address what happened to Christopher Reeve (who elected not to pursue euthanasia while in pain). He fell off a horse and was injured on the impact. But then again, to use the same train of thought, if we define his injury as a "dis-ease," then, did he sustain his injury because he had been sinful? Or was it because he was a member of "mankind" and, therefore, eligible for illness by virtue of his membership in the "sinful" species?:rolleyes:

Accidents do happen. My daughter has been lying in a hospital bed for the last three weeks due to a freak injury playing soccer. We could have lost her. I would have been devastated, but she would have gone to heaven and we'd have played together again at a future date. I think accidents will happen in Heaven as well, but maybe immediate cure?

Because of sin, the whole world is running down. At a time in the future it will cease to exist, but God will create a new Heaven and Earth that will not run down, and those wanting to may live there, as long as they accept God's free gift of grace. We accept dis-ease as apart of life.

Galvia

BrianCalgary wrote:

Accidents do happen. My daughter has been lying in a hospital bed for the last three weeks due to a freak injury playing soccer.

May she fully recover.:)

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

This position is doubly unacceptable when it seems that the only justification for the refusal of euthanasia seems to be that a portion of the population think that there's a "god" somewhere who has an unspecified "plan" somewhere and that this "plan" involves somebody *else* remaining in some unquenchable agony until they die, without ever thinking to ask how the sufferer might feel about the, er, execution of this "plan". What an awful way to go.

While we can all see very clearly the idea that euthanasia relieves unneccessary suffering, I think the risks of the policy should be seriously considered.

I was reading a bioethics papers last night called "In Defence of Ageism" where the costs of care for elderly people were compared against the stratospheric opportunity cost of resources denied to younger patients with better probability of survival and contribution. It is summed up by the Simpsons quote about how we should isolate the elderly and extract what nutrients we can from them. I realise that euthanasia, if ever introduced, will be brought in with the tightest of regulatory controls.

But I also realise that regulatory controls collapse even in areas that people have strong vested interests in (corporate governance fiascos anyone?) nevermind in something so unprofitable as caring for old decrepit wrinklies. I would find euthanasia utterly unacceptable if the "culture of life" ethics that our society values so dearly were undermined and ongoing expensive palliative care became optional, rather than the rule.

This position is doubly unacceptable when it seems that the only justification for euthanasia seems to be that a portion of the population think that matter is all there is and matter is all that matters and that any recourse to metaphysical explanations for the inherent value of life and persistence of hope is dismissed with a superior flick of the wrist. Considering health insurance profit margins, others could decide that you should be happy with the innings that you have had and that resources just can't be spared to keep your life going, especially as we define it as one of unsustainable suffering. What an awful way to go.

Excelsior

Excelsior wrote:

While we can all see very clearly the idea that euthanasia relieves unneccessary suffering, I think the risks of the policy should be seriously considered.

I was reading a bioethics papers last night called "In Defence of Ageism" where the costs of care for elderly people were compared against the stratospheric opportunity cost of resources denied to younger patients with better probability of survival and contribution. It is summed up by the Simpsons quote about how we should isolate the elderly and extract what nutrients we can from them. I realise that euthanasia, if ever introduced, will be brought in with the tightest of regulatory controls.

But I also realise that regulatory controls collapse even in areas that people have strong vested interests in (corporate governance fiascos anyone?) nevermind in something so unprofitable as caring for old decrepit wrinklies. I would find euthanasia utterly unacceptable if the "culture of life" ethics that our society values so dearly were undermined and ongoing expensive palliative care became optional, rather than the rule.

This position is doubly unacceptable when it seems that the only justification for euthanasia seems to be that a portion of the population think that matter is all there is and matter is all that matters and that any recourse to metaphysical explanations for the inherent value of life and persistence of hope is dismissed with a superior flick of the wrist. Considering health insurance profit margins, others could decide that you should be happy with the innings that you have had and that resources just can't be spared to keep your life going, especially as we define it as one of unsustainable suffering. What an awful way to go.

from what I can tell of this post (sorry excel, I found it a bit rambly and hard to understand, maybe I'm just really tired from last night) you think it's ok but only as long as it's not abused and people don't just go for it to get rid of people who drain resources, so to speak?
Yeah, I'd agree there could be room there for bad things to happen which definitely shouldn't - I'm for it as long as nothing goes wrong like that.

Excelsior

Long and rambly? Ah crap. Sorry about that. I would say that I am generally against it because things will go wrong with it.

Excelsior

Excelsior wrote:

Long and rambly? Ah crap. Sorry about that. I would say that I am generally against it because things will go wrong with it.

If it was very regulated then would that be ok?
I guess I'm just asking about the principle of it rather than the practice

Cantab.

bluewolf wrote:

If it was very regulated then would that be ok?
I guess I'm just asking about the principle of it rather than the practice

No it wouldn't be ok. Because if you introduce euthanasia, the most vunerable people in our society are made to feel as if they are a burden on those around them and are better off dead. The very fact that the option of euthanasia puts pressure on such individuals to terminate their own lives and if they don't, then they are somehow putting a burden (financial, emotional, etc.) on their families/the state.

Euthanasia is not an alternative to providing quality palitative care to the elderly who, by their own humanity, are entitled to the best that we can provide for them.

The whole euthanasia debate and some of the pro-ethanasia arguments out there just typifies the attitude that many people have to life these days - one where ones very existance is judged based on their economic output.

samb

Cantab. wrote:

The whole euthanasia debate and some of the pro-ethanasia arguments out there just typifies the attitude that many people have to life these days - one where ones very existance is judged based on their economic output.

Who is making that argument?, Nobody?

Pro-euthanasia people's main argument is that it is inhumane to keep people alive in extreme pain who do not want to be kept alive.
We will all grow old (well, hopefully) so I can't imagine anyone believeing what you said above. Straw man?

It is about giving people control over thier own lives, instead of treating them like children, who are not qualified to make decisions for themselves.

robindch

> [Cantab] Because if you introduce euthanasia, the most vunerable people in our
> society are made to feel as if they are a burden on those around them
> and are better off dead.

> [Excelsior] I would find euthanasia utterly unacceptable if the "culture of life" ethics
> that our society values so dearly were undermined and ongoing expensive
> palliative care became optional

> [BrianCalgary] It's acceptable to put your granny on an ice flow to die because it has been
> decided that she is no longer useful and she desires to die?

Good heavens, folks. I leave the city for 36 hours and look what happens. Did nobody take the 30 seconds to read what I wrote before leaping into battle on the back the nearest high moral horse to deliver a synchronized volley of ethical grapeshot at some phantasmagorical target?

I'll repeat what I said:

What's unacceptable though, is the lack of a reciprocal right for somebody to decide to be injected/inject themselves with some fatal chemical if they feel that life's too painful to continue.

*This* is what I am talking about, that's why I said it! I said nothing about boiling down out relatives into dogfood or Soylent Green, or indeed putting my gran onto an ice floe to freeze to death (actually, she declined over the five years following a car accident, into a featherweight fed through a tube, as she'd forgotten how to eat along with everything else).

This article from the British Medical Journal has a few thoughts on the topic:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7383/271

Any (re-issued) thoughts?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

> What's unacceptable though, is the lack of a reciprocal right for somebody to decide to be injected/inject themselves with some fatal chemical if they feel that life's too painful to continue.

I would also support this position. I believe it is the right of each individual to decide for themselves. However, before anyone goes of the deep end, I am deliberately leaving religion out of this because that is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves. Having come out in favor of it, I must also say that I completely agree and worry about the points Excelsior raised. I too could see others taking advantage to pack Granny away because she was costing to much in the terms of nursing time and healthcare costs, or whatever excuses is used. That is not acceptable, life requires that we pay it the proper respect, and we should treat people in this unfortunate predicament with the dignity they deserve.
If there were some way that a person, like in the case of a living will, could specify legally in advance that they would wish for euthanasia. And the government, in respect for all that money it has bled the person of during their life, takes it upon themselves to provide the proper and dignified means to end life. I would be happy with that outcome. I do not want to ever see again another fiasco like the Terri Shiavo affair. That was a black mark for humanity IMHO.

Excelsior

Samb I posted a link to a very influential bioethics paper where it is proposed that opportunity cost and resource distribution take precedence in matters of palliative care to terminal patients. At heart, this strand of what the proponents would like to see as their no-nonsense, metaphysically free pragmatics is a powerful force in the euthanasia movement.

I can see where you are coming from Asiaprod and Robin but I think you are being naive if you believe that rights are implemented individually. Of course each individual has rights but they are dependent upon the society at large to see those rights fulfilled. Regardless of the councils, bodys and guidelines set up to legistlate euthanasia, if the status quo changes, the individual seeking their right to life would be dependent on a culture at large to implement that. The temptation to profit motive will be too large. I am principally oppossed to euthanasia for Christians, I can understand it for people who think they will rot when they die but I still fear that brining it in will undermine the positive (and unimaginably expensive) freedom to live in chronic, terminal pain.

And I hope people see that when Robin passes off my argument as moral high-horseing, I quoted his well written text and literally remixed it replacing the words that applied to my perspective. This is a moral issue. You cannot discuss it except ethically.

BrianCalgary

samb wrote:

Who is making that argument?, Nobody?

.

This argument has been raised here in Canada. We have had a couple of cases go to court regarding 'physician assisted suicide'. No convictions have occured. I don't think anyone wants to go the route of finding a doctor guilty when the patient has signed a waiver.

The argument that does get raised is that in Holland where 'physician assisted suicide' (PAS) is legal that the elderly do get pressured into sigining a waiver by family and friends for the economic reasons. I don't know how much of the stories are true, but nonetheless, where there is smoke there is fire.


Originally Posted by robindch
> What's unacceptable though, is the lack of a reciprocal right for somebody to decide to be injected/inject themselves with some fatal chemical if they feel that life's too painful to continue.

Robin, I have read and reread this sentence. I don't get it. Maybe it's my tired old brain. Sorry about your Gran. How is she now?


Galvia, thanks for the sentiments on my daughter. Full recovery is expected. She may be out of hospital this weekend.

neuro-praxis

I am a Christian and so believe in the dignity and value of the human person as upheld by God. This colours my view of everything and in terms of euthanasia, I firmly believe that there are cases where it is kinder to allow death than to maintain a wretched existence. Patients who find themselves unable to breathe alone, unable to eat or drink, unable to move, speak or think... in some situations it might be kinder to allow them to die through the removal of certain life-sustaining equipment than to have them virtually decompose while still alive.

But I just can't see how a compassionate allowance of death in special cases would not be abused in any medical system.

I am less sure about death in order to cut out pain related to disease. Life is painful. We are born with pain; it is not unusual then that we should die with pain. Pain is simply the way it is. Pain can be treated well. A study in 2004 by a doctor called Bercovitch has shown conclusively that cancer patients, for example, can receive very high doses of morphine safely and regularly and this will not affect their lifespan.

We need to examine every single avenue before considering ending or allowing to end the life of a patient, and if euthanasia is legalised, it will become first choice for callous families burdened by ill loved ones and prideful people who cannot bear the thought of being vulnerable and in need of intense care.

robindch

> when Robin passes off my argument as moral high-horseing, I quoted
> his well written text

I was referring to it as high-horsing, not because of the delicate ebb and flow of its elegant rhetorical prose, but because -- changing equine metaphors half-way through the race -- there was a whole load of leaping onto bandwagons going on (to wit, from yet another poster "it will become first choice for callous families burdened by ill loved ones"; sigh), rather than addressing the actual point I was making...

> [BC] I have read and reread this sentence. I don't get it.

At the moment, if I'm suffering from some terminal disease which will kill me, which leaves me in inexcusable pain when pain-relieving drugs no longer work, I have no right to request a dignified end, no matter how much I want it. Why not?

Note that I'm not talking about people saying that other people should be killed (instances of withdrawal of feeding tube notwithstanding), but specifically about people *requesting* a dignified release from some torment in a codified, legal manner with appropriate safeguards and checks and a defined legal recourse in the case of misuse. Oregon's model is useful -- a signed request from the patient on a standard form, witnessed by non-family members, screened by the medical facility concerned. The relevant law is here. The good folks at religioustolerance have written this page which seems to provide a good summary of where we're at with this, worldwide.

Is this acceptable? Note again that I'm talking about people making a specific request to end their lives peacefully, and not suggesting that bands of healthy skeptics should roam the streets, Mad-Max-style, with scythes and wheelbarrows to gather up any wrinklies not quick enough out of the way. If you don't wish to make such a request, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, then (by default) you are free to live in pain as long as the medical estalishment can keep you alive.

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the clarification.

Unfortunately I see down the road pressure put on by families for economic reasons, to terminate a life. With possibly non-family members even gaining by the act. I guess that I don't trust people to be unselfish when there is financial gain to be had.


This link expresses my concerns well:
http://troubledwith.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/troubledwith.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1195

samb

That link was rubbish brian. Fantasy stuff. Why would we start assisting 18year old girls to kill themselves, its crazy.
Is this happening in switzerland or holland?, No why would it.

BrianCalgary

samb wrote:

That link was rubbish brian..

How do you know it's rubbish?

samb wrote:

Fantasy stuff. Why would we start assisting 18year old girls to kill themselves, its crazy.
Is this happening in switzerland or holland?, No why would it.

Fifty years ago we wouldn't have accepted abortion or gay marriage. The ACLU and Human Rights commissions in Canada would argue that an 18 year old is quite capable of making a decison on life, since they are legally an adult. Kids here can go and get an abortion at any age with no need to get parental consent. So it is not a far fetched scenario.


As mentioned earlier, I have heard reports out of Holland during the few cases here in Canada. But I didn't pay much attention to the sources, so I can't come up with any.

samb

Have you ever heard of anyone advocating this scenario as desirable? Gay marriage has been advocated for years, as has abortion.

I think you have a paraoid view of where society is going. It might not be going in the direction you would like, it is going in the direction I like:) , but don't worry society will never want to assist a healthy 18year old commit suicide.

robindch

> The ACLU and Human Rights commissions in Canada would argue that an
> 18 year old is quite capable of making a decison on life, since they are
> legally an adult.

Have they argued this, or are you saying that you think that they would argue this if somebody were to ask them?

The article that you linked to presupposes a situation which removes all of the safeguards that I *specifically* included to prevent this type of situation occurring. Again, if you address the point that I'm making and not something else, you'll find that what I'm saying is not unreasonable and that it clarifies and codifies a process, albeit an unpleasant one, which already happens.

Related to the unnecessary suicide that you're referring to, how many attempt to commit suicide every year but botch it up? How many of these wouldn't try it themselves if they realized that they could go to a doctor, talk it through anonymously, realise the implications, get treatment for some condition if that's applicable, and *only as a last resort*, apply for voluntary euthanasia, if the medical staff, and subsequently the family, all agree that there's no alternative (ie, the final stages of cancer or lukaemia, but *not* depression, since that's treatable)? Wouldn't that be likely to save some lives?

The problem with this issue is that suicide is heavily stigmatized, so people keep it to themselves until it occasionally overwhelms them. If society were able to face the fact that people *do* commit suicide, then attempt to deal with it face-on, rather than pretending that it doesn't, and suffering the hideous consequences, we might go some way towards solving the problem.

But as long as it's stigmatized, then nothing's going to change and, like the stupid prohibitions that most countries place upon prostitution and drugs -- and I have worked in Dublin with people who have suffered the effects of both -- the people most in need of support in our society simply won't realise that it's there.

BrianCalgary

samb wrote:

Have you ever heard of anyone advocating this scenario as desirable? Gay marriage has been advocated for years, as has abortion.

I think you have a paraoid view of where society is going. It might not be going in the direction you would like, it is going in the direction I like:) , but don't worry society will never want to assist a healthy 18year old commit suicide.

It's not a paranoia, it is a reality check. In my lifetime, abortion was illegal, it then became legal, as long as two doctors signed a paper indicating that the mothers life was in danger. (Safeguards like the Oregan law, cited by Robin). Then it became a womeans own choice, who needs doctors notes, why should a doctor have the final say? It was argued that abortions happen anyway, the clinics will allow women to talk about it and get counselling. Unfortunately, the clinics only got paid when they actually performed an abortion.

Next step was to allow teenagers under 18 access to abortions. Safeguards where built in to only allow them with parental consent, then the ACLU HRC types got involved and thought that parental involvement infringed on the free rights of the teenager to have access to a normal medical procedure. Now teenagers obtain abortions without parents being notified. So Samb, I have watche dit happen on the issue of abortion, that is why it will happen with physician assisted suicide.

So let's get this straight, you like a society where people can commit suicide as they like? Life is cheap isn't it? How many times do teenagers feel like ending it, when the hormones are raging? We all got over it.

samb

Do you know much about the lax gun laws in the US, it's disgracful, soon they'll be legalising drive-by shootings.:rolleyes:

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

So let's get this straight, you like a society where people can commit suicide as they like? Life is cheap isn't it? How many times do teenagers feel like ending it, when the hormones are raging? We all got over it.

What of a situation where someone is totally paralysed, and unable to live without an entire roomfull of machinary. With no hope of recovery, and the possibility of perhaps another 40 or 50 years like that, would you rather stay in that situation, or end it?

Excelsior

If by ending it you mean removing the machinery that keeps me alive, then I might make that choice. Me against nature without the handicap of an iron lung sounds fair enough. But euthanasia is not the refusal of artificial life-preservation technology. It is the active killing of a chronically or terminally ill person. I believe my life, like all other humans, has value even if it is not contributing in some material way.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

It is the active killing of a chronically or terminally ill person. I believe my life, like all other humans, has value even if it is not contributing in some material way.

Ok, change the scenario then ... you have terminal cancer, with X months to live. In this time your body will degrade, you will be in constant increasing ammounts of pain, till not even continual morphene doses will be able to keep it under control. You have no hope of anything but deterioration and death.

Will you choose to go through that, or end it quickly and painlessly?

robindch

> It is the active killing of a chronically or terminally ill person.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions about the withdrawal of feeding tubes -- personally, I can't distinguish between this relatively common procedure and giving somebody a painless, lethal injection. The second sounds a lot more merciful to me, but others may have different ideas.

CathyMoran

Having just seen a loved one die from a terminal illness I am glad that euthanasia is not available, she died in her own time and in peace...with the best will in the world euthanasia could be open to abuse, she would have been considered a "bed blocker"...her last few months gave us all a chance to get used to her passing, though obviously it was a terrible shock when she passed. I am not against withdrawing certain treatments as long as the person is not in pain - would find it hard to agree with withdrawing feeding tubes though.

hairyheretic

Let me give you a contrast. I lost my father to cancer in December of last year. From being diagnosed to his death was literally just a month. In that time the cancer spread, or was found in, 6 secondary sites.

We were told that it was terminal and untreatable. We watched as his body decayed, till at the end my arm was probably thicker than his leg was. We watched his pain levels increase daily till not even a constantly active morphene pump was capable of controlling it. With the secondary on his brain, he wasn't always lucid either .. we were never entirely sure if he knew who was there, who he was talking to, or what he was talking about.

That time didn't give his family time to come to terms with it. It just gave them weeks of watching someone they loved spiral downwards. It came them a couple of incidents where he was expected not to live through the night. I know the pain that everyone was put through with that.

I don't know if he would have chosen to end his own life, given what he went through. If I was in that situation, I would want to spare those I cared about from going through what I did when my father died.

Yes, euthanasia can be abused, but so can just about everything else that exists. I believe the option should be there though.

Rev Hellfire

I'd be interested in hearing opinions about the withdrawal of feeding tubes -- personally, I can't distinguish between this relatively common procedure and giving somebody a painless, lethal injection. The second sounds a lot more merciful to me, but others may have different ideas.

I personally see a huge difference between denying intervention and 'giving somebody a painless, lethal injection'. You remove the chance of any recovery with euthanasia.

For example I have had to make the decision a few times now as to how much intervention (ie resuscitation) the doctors should take when dealing with my daughter. And have been told numerous times last year alone that she would not make it through the night. A decision that gets harder as she gets older to maintain.

People need to be very careful when talking about quality of life, where do u draw the line? Its perhaps one thing for the actual sufferer to make a decision themselves regards euthanasia and society deciding whose quality of life is worth saving.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote:

For example I have had to make the decision a few times now as to how much intervention (ie resuscitation) the doctors should take when dealing with my daughter. And have been told numerous times last year alone that she would not make it through the night. A decision that gets harder as she gets older to maintain.

Firstly, please accept my sympathy for what you are experiencing, I will keep you and your family in mind when I do what I do. And thank you so much for sharing it with us. I think your input is very important as you are going through it. It is so easy to make decisions and give opinions when it is not ourselves that are going through it. I too lost a sister, but it was a gradual slipping away through cancer. At that time I also thought about this based on the pain and suffering that it was causing my family to watch it. If given the option, could I have been the one to sign for euthanasia, I honestly do not know. I think for me, it would have to be along the lines of what hairyheretic had to watch, my sympathy to you my friend also, it would all depend on the suffering and pain.
All I can say is I would hate to be in that position. It might be a good idea for all of us reading this this thread to really think about making a living will. If not for ourselves, at least for those who have to suffer watching us go through it. Thanks for the insight Rev. and HH.

CathyMoran

hairyheretic wrote:

Let me give you a contrast. I lost my father to cancer in December of last year. From being diagnosed to his death was literally just a month. In that time the cancer spread, or was found in, 6 secondary sites.

We were told that it was terminal and untreatable. We watched as his body decayed, till at the end my arm was probably thicker than his leg was. We watched his pain levels increase daily till not even a constantly active morphene pump was capable of controlling it. With the secondary on his brain, he wasn't always lucid either .. we were never entirely sure if he knew who was there, who he was talking to, or what he was talking about.

That time didn't give his family time to come to terms with it. It just gave them weeks of watching someone they loved spiral downwards. It came them a couple of incidents where he was expected not to live through the night. I know the pain that everyone was put through with that.

I don't know if he would have chosen to end his own life, given what he went through. If I was in that situation, I would want to spare those I cared about from going through what I did when my father died.

Yes, euthanasia can be abused, but so can just about everything else that exists. I believe the option should be there though.

Hi HairyHeretic - firstly, I am very sorry for your loss. My gran was like that for her final two weeks and had phases over the last few months of her illness (also cancer) but we were lucky in that she had good times too and she died peacefully. It was horrible seeing her so ill but she did not go until she wanted to, I do believe that.

With my mum, we had the chance of not letting her have surgery (she had a brain haemorrage), it would have meant certain death within the week but the surgery (and the haemorrage) carried the risk of severe brain damage and unfortunatly she has severe brain damage. Sometimes I do think did we make the right choice, she gets very fustrated knowing that she is not better and we can not tell her that she never will be but for her (if not my dad who is her full time carer, it is killing him) it was the right choice. If it were me I would not have the surgery but I have my reasons.

A living will does appear to be the best choice.

larryone

Personally, if I knew I was going to go, I'd rather die at home than die in a hospital bed with tubes stuck through me. If I knew I was going to go, I'd rather leave the hospital bed free for someone whose life could actually be saved. Would I like to be put out of my misery? If I could feel nothing but pain, and there was no end to it other than death? I dont believe in eternal damnation, so I probably wouldnt mind taking the option of ending my life a few days early.